Are the Five Points of Calvinism Biblical? (A Debate)

June 23rd, 2011 - The 3rd Annual Speaking Truth in Love Conference features Dr. Phil Fernandes and Mr. Chris Comis as they debate the topic: "Are the five points Calvinism biblical?" The debate was held and sponsored in large part by Grace Community Church in Auburn WA - www.graceinauburn.com and Speaking Truth in Love Conference - www.speakingtruthinloveconference.com

Dr. Fernandes is President of the Institute of Biblical Defense He is a Christian Apologist, Author and Pastor of Trinity Bible Fellowship

www.instituteofbiblicaldefense.com

Dr. Fernandes holds the following degrees: •Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion degree from Greenwich University •Master of Arts in Religion degree from Liberty University •Bachelor of Theology Degree from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

Chris Comis is a graduate of the University of Washington where he received a B.A. in Philosophy and Criminal Justice (1997) and is in the process of finishing his M.Th. at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.

Graduated from Greyfriars' Ministerial Hall (2011)
He received his Pastoral Training, at Greyfriars' Ministerial Hall, Christ Church, Moscow, ID (2003-06) he has completed all three years that are required for Greyfriars' Hall, along with all of the required readings and writings. You can read his pastoral position papers, here: www.christkirk.com/greyfriars

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Five
• Points
• Calvinism
• Debate
• Phil
• Fernandes
• Chris
• Comis
• John
• Calvin
• Total
• Depravity
• Unconditional
• Election
• Limited
• Atonement
• Irresistible
• Grace
• Perseverance
• of
• Saints
• Presbyterian
• Westminster
• Free-will
• God
• Sovereignty
• Providence
• Middle
• Knowledge

[dustinp206]

Thanks Dr Fernandes you torn up that calvanist like lettuce in a shredder never stood a chance.

[Keruaran]

Dr. Fernandes wants you to accept his view that Calvinists are basically bending scripture to suit their theology so that "world" only means "the elect" (that "world" refers to the many whom God will save and not everyone in the whole world). But the view that the "world" means "the whole world" leads to universalism, which is not scriptural.

[Keruaran]

@jlwohio

John 3:16 doesn't refute this theology. Jesus didn't say "whosoever believeth" in the sense that you've understood it. A literal translation might not make for smooth English but it can be accurately rendered as, "every one believing". Jesus does not imply nor say anything here that contradicts John 6:37-45. Who comes except those whom the Father draws? Who according to Romans 3 truly seeks after God? You did not choose Him, He chose you.

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

so now tulip makes God a repect of person, because all men sin then all men are able to come to Christ, 2 cor 5 19 romans 15 17 - end, God is no repected of person, they that come to Him He will in no wise cast them out ,

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

@jlwohio That said it all, it is so true, 2cor 5:19 amen amen amen

[jlwohio]

I don't need a Doctrite or special schooling to know calvanism is not Scriptural. John 3:16 alone refutes this theology. If calvanism was true Jesus would have never been able to say " Whosoever" believeth on Him shall not perish. Peter says in Acts 2 that " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Paul says the same thing in Romans. We clearly have a choice to believe or not to believe.

[rkg62976]

@jak. 1) 1Cor.10:13 is an indicative statement, followed by an imperative (v.14): wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. So you have not addressed my first point. And you're confusing an indicative statement (v.13), with an imperative (v.14). Not only this, but Paul is writing to believers; not unbelievers.

2) I'll ask you this about Jas.4:17, is this an indicative, or an imperative statement?

To whom is James writing, believers, or, unbelievers?

Exegesis, my friend.

[jakreidler]

@rkg62976

1) Because "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."

2) Because "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them." Of course, I think the above passage confirms that we will always know the good we ought to do.

[rkg62976]

Why do synergists (Arminians and others) constantly presume that:

1) An imperative mood of speech implies ability? An imperative is merely a command of what man 'ought to do', it does not imply what man has 'the ability to do'.

2) "Free will", and/or, "ability" are prerequisites for "responsibility". They most certainly are NOT! The ONLY prerequisite for responsibility is a Lawgiver (God), and His Law (eg., the Decalogue); and, if one will be required to give a response to the Lawgiver.

[Onetruthrgv]

@gtepp031387 1.) Actually Vatican II says we are now brothers in Christ but we are merely disconnected from the "True Church"

2.) John 14:6

3.) Okay that is your opinion and you are entitled to it